Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Please upload the main point (2~3 sentences) of the reading by Tuesday, March 27,
4pm.
Be prepared to provide a summary + main takeaway of your readings in section.
This document is to guide your readings only - please refer to these summaries at your
own risk.
1. “White House Tapes and Minutes of the Cuban Missile Crisis,” International
Security, vol. 10, Summer 1985, pp. 164-203 (skim).
Couldn’t afford to lose Cuba. Would cause the rest of Latin America to reject socialism
3. Foreign Relations of the U.S., 1952-1954, vol. II, National Security Affairs,
part I, pp. 367-370, 491-534, 578-597.
This document lays out the beliefs of the US in relation to the advancement of
Communism; the policies and ideals the West is willing to uphold; the context in which the
conflict is inserted at the time; the perceptions by US leaders of the USSR intentions; the US
relationships with its allies; and the possible change of course in the US resolutions in case
there is a threat of damage.
– Soviets as a threat to the security, free institutions, and fundamental values of the
US
– Hostility to the non-communist world, particularly the US
– Military power
– Control of communism and means of subversion or division of the “free world”
– Prospect of maintenance of the USSR “mission,” beliefs, and objectives in the context
of a transfer of power
– Soviet strategies are flexible, more on the safe side (concessions are avoided)
– Defense needs to be enhanced against the increasing atomic and conventional military
capability of the USSR; fear of a surprise attack
– Unrest in Eastern Europe: wanting ability to subjugate the people in “rebellious”
countries; psychological and strategic strain on the USSR leaders; however, detachment is
not likely
– China–USSR strong relations
– General war is unlikely considering the context
– Fear of mistakes (attacks) led by miscalculation
– Soviet resolution to divide and subvert the West
– Soviet popular pressure (consumer goods), bureaucracy may lead to negotiations
– Reiteration of US need to keep strong militarily, economically, and “morally”
(ideologically)
– Importance of allies: division of high costs of war and maintenance of the world
balance
– Key points: NATO, Indochina, Formosa
– Coalition: US military power in Europe and Southeast Asia is very important
– Possible points of conflict: trade, bases and defense, US economic aid, interstate
historic issues (Europe), difficulties as a result of the neocolonialist crisis
– Some states view US actions and resolutions as unstable, too hard, and/or inconsistent
with their ideals
– Resentment is strong against the West in uncommitted areas (anti-colonialism, rising
nationalism, conflicting philosophies)
– Plans for economic stability (maintenance and development of the private enterprise,
reinforcement fiscal policies, controlled spending and controlled inflation)
– Federal Government deficit (approx. $4 billion)
– Tax reductions would start in January 1954
– Apparent need to sever rights and freedoms of workers in US for the sake of the
conflict; conflict/balance between productivity and values (popular support for the
government)
– Building a sense of “community”: allies must believe US policies are directed towards
collective benefits
– The US must keep considering negotiation with the USSR and China as a viable means
of action
– The US must maintain the hope and confidence in the superiority of the “free world” in
relation to Communism
– Radical re-examination of these resolutions is possible in the event of impending
danger of attack/significant damage
4. Raymond Garthoff, “Berlin, 1961: The Record Corrected,” Foreign Policy, No.
84, Fall 1991, pp. 142-156.
– Paradox: Soviets had bugged the Moscow Embassy, had been reading the
messages to and from Washington, but there is no evidence that they used the
information against the US
– Possible explanation: Soviets sacrificed specific gains in order to avoid being
discovered. However, that does not mean they did not benefit (e.g. by knowing American
decisions before officially contacting the US)
– Soviets had access to classified information, but there is no evidence of political
damage derived from that
– Confidential: prejudicial; Secret: (could cause) serious damage; Top Secret:
(could cause) exceptionally grave damage
– Soviet’s fear of losing the source is motivated by a prioritization of action regarding
information on hostilities (1953 settlement)
– No way to accurately measure the influence of background information on US–USSR
relations
Americans were losing the war and G. Washington decided to change strategy
and make espionnage a major part his plans.
He used a lot of disinformation to confuse the british
Without this move, Americans would probably have lost the war.
This reading which consists of several op eds seeks to address commonly held
misconceptions about American intelligence and intelligence agencies. The
misconceptions addressed are outlined below. For each one, the writers discuss
why they are misconceptions based on on the facts, ultimately concluding, as
Pillar stated, “America’s screw ups come from bad leaders not lousy spies.”
1. Presidents make decisions based on intelligence - The decision to wage
the Iraq war was not based on the reports of WMDs.
2. Bad intelligence led to the Iraq war - Bad leadership did.
3. Intelligence failures screwed up U.S. foreign policy - Failures did not
matter in the big picture of foreign policy.
4. U.S. intelligence underestimated al Qaeda before 9/11 - No, it didn’t.
Agencies had been warning of the threat years before.
5. Hidebound intelligence agencies refuse to change - Reorganization of
intelligence agencies occur frequently. Most effective reforms come
from inside the agencies, not outside.
6. Intelligence has gotten better since 9/11 - Yes, but not because of
increased spending, but because of a shift in America's priorities.
7. Good intelligence can save us from bad surprises - Intelligence could
not predict Arab Spring.
14. Foreign Relations of the U.S., 1950, vol. VII, pp. 157-161, 1242-1249, 1323-
1334 (Korean War decisions).
These are notes and memorandi from several meetings on the subject of the
U.S. Korean War. They give insight into the decision making process for
leaders of states in international relations. They show that how U.S. actions in
Taiwan, though logical to U.S. decision makers, were viewed negatively by
Chinese decision makers.
15. Michael Armacost, The Foreign Relations of the U.S., ch. 6. Thomas Schwartz,
“’Henry,….Winning an Election is Terribly Important’
17. Bartholomew Sparrow, The Strategist: Brent Scowcroft and the Call of
National Security, pp. 394-400.
18. Leo Ribuffo, “Religion and American Foreign Policy,” The National Interest,
No. 52, Summer 1998, pp. 36-51 (skim) or Walter Russell Mead, “God's Country?”
Foreign Affairs, vol. 85, Sept./Oct. 2006, pp. 24-43.
In his article “God’s Country? Evangelicals and U.S. Foreign Policy” in Foreign
Affairs, Walter Russell Mead argues that as U.S. evangelicals exert increasing political
influence, they are becoming a powerful force in foreign affairs. In recent years,
evangelicals have voted overwhelmingly Republican, helping to put conservatives at the
helm of U.S. foreign policy, while focusing their energies on a handful of specific issues,
including support for Israel, the promotion of religious freedom abroad and the
alleviation of hunger in Africa. But as evangelicals mature politically, they are showing
interest in a broader array of foreign policy issues, including global warming,
traditionally seen as liberal.
19. Robert Pastor, Whirlpool: US Foreign Policy toward Latin America and the
Caribbean, ch. 6.
- This reading uses the examples of United States policies in Latin America to
explain interbranch relationships between Congress and the President when it
comes to foreign policy, particularly in checking or overriding the deficiencies
of the other. For example, U.S policy on human rights is often a form of
executive diplomacy (Nixon funneling money to Pinochet’s Chile while Carter
made human rights the foundation of his aid policies), but Congress can check
the influence by passing bills forbidding money to go to “bad” regimes or set
spending limits. Also the relationship between Congress and the President is
important in sending the national message, as mistrust and disagreement
between the branches can be interpreted badly by foreign powers (example in
reading was 1976 conversation between Kissinger and Brazil with Brazil
suggesting that the U.S.’s “commitment” to human rights was based on
Congressional pressure rather than any executive initiatives).
20. Supreme Court of the US, “Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v.
Sawyer”
23. “Rex Tillerson May be the Weakest Secretary of State Ever,” Foreign
Policy online, March 10, 2017
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/10/rex- tillerson-might-be-the-weakest-secretary-of-
state-ever/
24. FRUS, 1964-1968, vol. 33, Organization and Management of U.S. Foreign
Policy, pp. 420-21 (doc. # 190).
25. FRUS, 1969-1976, vol. 32, SALT I, 1969-1972, pp. 622-24, 658-62 (docs. #
204, 219).
in 1823, Edward Everett (professor) supports Greeks in fighting for independence from Ottoman Empire
Supported by Daniel Webster (Mass. Senator)
Both draw political power from networking Boston élite circles
They generate strong philhellenic feeling using religious rhetoric / islamophobia and appealing to Americans’
interventionism
o ”[Greeks are] fellow Christians, ’bowed beneath the yoke of barbarous infidels’. They were fathers and
mothers, ‘condemned to see their children torn from them and doomed to the most cruel slavery’.” (450)
But Thomas Perkins (trader) opposed movement
o He figured out he could make bank by selling Turkish opium to the Chinese in Canton (Guangzhou)
o This scheme (a lot of Perkins’ trading was illegal) ended up ”adding millions more to Boston’s economy.”
(449)
Congress voted on offering help to Greece, and the motion failed
o This was consistent with the Monroe Doctrine (”non-entanglement with the Old World”) and George
Washington’s ”separate-hemispheres” ideology
o But mostly, they cared about the development of Boston’s economy which was one of the most important of
the country at the time
Everett & Webster backed down and did not try to revive the effort
o Historians argued this was proof that they cared more about the political expediency and name-recognition
the fight brought them than the cause itself
BASICALLY, the takeaway from the piece was that foreign policy often takes a ”pragmatic, ad hoc nature” (especially
in the time period of the Early Republic) that trumps ideological considerations
o While the Greeks were both Christians and revolutionaries (both appealing qualities to American support),
the enormous influx of money generated from Turkish opium was more important in deciding foreign
relations.
o ”As President, Adams appropriated $20,000 to negotiate a most-favoured-nation treaty with Turkey”
a. Josiah Ober, “Classical Greek Times,” in Michael Howard, et al., eds., The
Laws of War, pp. 12-26.
Prior to 450 BC, Greek city states conducted battle by rules
A. Don’t chase down retreating enemy, do not attack non combatants, etc.
B. These were based on the shared socio-economic standing of hoplites,
which constituted a broad middle class between the upper class (who
were more refrained from the combat) and the lower class (who
couldn’t afford armor)
C. The broad range of unequals in the hoplite class translated to a broad
members of the military fighting together as one
D. The common values and nature of amateur farmers fighting leads to the
seasonal, rules based warfare amongst Greek city states
Many needs and purposes can only be achieved by influencing behavior of other states
National interest:
Normative: ideal set of purposes which nation should seek to realize.
Descriptive: purposes which nation appears to pursue persistently through time.
Realm of facts.
3rd definition: arena for conflict among individuals and groups whose
conceptions of the national interest have and will always differ widely
Objective: an image of a future state of affairs and future set of conditions
Many governments improvise policies to meet specific domestic or external crises.
Transactions between govts unplanned and serve needs of a few private citizens
Most important decisions made under pressure of immediate crisis rather than long,
thought out policy.
Govts often pursue incompatible policy simultaneously. Must rank and choose amongst
conflicting objectives
Political units seek to achieve complete range of private and collective, concrete and
value objectives
Most states seek collective objects of national security, welfare of citizens, access to trade
Criteria of objectives:
1. Value of objective: extent to which actors commit resources to realize goal
2. Time element
3. Kinds of demands the objective imposes on other states in the system.
Categories of objectives:
1. Core values: gov must be committed to these at all times
a. Articles of faith a society accepts uncritically (Monroe Doctrine, command of sea)
b. Related to self preservation of state
c. Perpetuation of particular political, social, economic system based on home territory
d. control/defend neighboring territories. Assets such as manpower/resources
e. ethnic/religious/linguistic unity
2. Mid range goals: impose demands on other states
. Economic betterment demands through international action. Can’t be achieved through
self help because states have limited resources, administrative services, technical skills
a. Primary commitments of many modern governments must be to pursue actions that have
highest impact on domestic welfare/economic needs
b. Govts sometimes translate private business interests into mid range goals, even when
these interests have little impact on general social welfare level
c. Increase state’s prestige. Measured by industrial development/scientific progress
d. Imperialism. Expansion an end in itself. Others seek the advantage of exclusive control
and access of resources through spheres of influence/satellites/protectorates
3. Universal long range goals: no definite time limits. These are rarely prioritized
. Universal demands. Reconstruction of entire international system
a. Never succeed, because threatened states coalesce.
b. The inherent determinism of Marxism grants flexibility to Soviet foreign policy.
Lenin believed he would see the downfall of capitalism in his own lifetime
Stalin was less optimistic about world revolution, believed the fall of capitalism would
occur in historical stages
Charles de Gaulle:
Importance of nation state in IR: soul of the people
France as leading force in Europe
Kissinger believed in interdependence in the international system. Greater
interdependence would lead to less conflict and war
-cuban-american relations during the period of the castro regime provide many examples of
american efforts to use economic instruments of policy for foreign-policy objectives.
-1966 UN voted to require member states to desist from trade of certain types of commodities
with Rhodesia
1985 US imposed economic sanctions against Nicaragua in 1985
Power is the capacity do to things and in social situations to affect others to get
the outcomes we want
Important to define power by looking at who gets what, where, how, and when.
Power can be defined in terms of resources, but also in terms of behavioral
outcomes.
For some goals, soft power more efficient than hard power (and vice versa)
Hard power is push; soft power is pull
Soft power is the ability to affect others through the co-optive means of
framing the agenda, persuading, and eliciting positive attraction in order to
obtain preferred outcomes
Smart Power: ability to combine hard and soft power resources into effective
strategies
This story, narrated by George Orwell, describes an experience he had while serving as a
sub-divisional European police officer in a small imperial Indian town (1900-1950). The officer
eventually kills an elephant that escaped from its owner. The law at that time stated that if this
animal is a danger to others, law enforcement must kill it. The officer saw that this elephant had
killed a person, but by the time he was close enough to make a decision to kill it or not, the
elephant was not doing any harm. With thousands of locals crowded around watching him, he
felt he had no choice but to shoot the elephant so as to make an example out of him by showing
the people that government enforcement of law was to be taken seriously, and the elephant and
he himself were no exceptions; he does this to show the people that the law enforcement was in a
position of power.This story serves to show how trying it is as a law enforcer at this time to
separate what you think is moral or right from the laws being enforced. Similarly to the nation
who takes up a diplomatic position that may preserve a reputation more than promote self
preservation, Orwell decides to kill the elephant in the name of upholding the imperial facade
that he is so begrudgingly apart of.
34. Stuart Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the
Frontier, pp. 49-56, 82-84.
Indian Land Sales: Was it voluntary?
Early years of English colonization: Voluntary
1. Exchange with English products (Alcohol, Guns)
2. Political alliance with English colonists.
- As Time goes by: Mixed
- 1. Colonists trespassed the boundaries—> Forcing colonial governments to
buy the lands
-2. Ecological change —> Hurt Indian Lands and not valuable anymore —>
Sell lands.
-3. Indian’s engagement with the English colonial economy
- Mortgage, later payment: Land
- End: Involuntary
- The English controlled legal system within which transactions were
enforced.
- Not threatened by the physical power but the Power of legal system: Used
English legal system
- English people thought that they were helping Indians by bringing the
English law (leading them to the path of civilization)
36. Laurent Fabius, “Inside the Iran Deal: A French Perspective,” Washington
Quarterly, vol. 39, Fall 2016, pp. 7-38 (skim).
Five prerequisites:
Give up the shadow of worthless rights for the substance of real advantage
(see Chapman reading)
Never put yourself in a position from which you cannot retreat and from
which you cannot advance
Never allow a weak ally to make decisions for you
Military is the instrument of foreign policy, not its master
The government is the leader of public opinion, ”not its slave” (173)
Sparrow, The Strategist: Brent Scowcroft and the Call of National Security
• What were Craig Fuller’s goals in this reading?
Pastor, Whirlpool: US Foreign Policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean
• How does Pastor characterize the role of Congress in the making of US foreign policy?
-Looks at the relationship between the president and congress. The congress has the power of
the purse and can deny funding for presidential initiatives.
Ober, “Classical Greek Times”c
• What is Ober’s argument about the organization and conduct of the Greek military?
Possession goals – Competing for limited resources and limiting out side
influences.
Aligns with direct influence- goals more personally oriented
• According to Holsti, what are the most important forms of economic rewards?
- The most important – Military assistances and foreign aid
• How did the legal system in the colonies come into play? The Indians had to navigate the
English legal system and due to their limited understanding, often suffered the greater loss.